Most are made up and silly.
The only one I've liked was in college I did a "communication style" one. Where it showed a bunch of different like emails, posts, and conversations and asked which you preferred to receive and which you were likely to write.
10 years later I still think about it, cause the goal of the work was to talk about how if you're a certain communication style what to keep in mind with communicating with others. Like tips to not get frustrated with yellows who don't care about facts when sending emails and how to write emails that don't bore and frustrate people if you're blue. (I'm blue green. I can sometimes write long emails)
I thought about it the other day cause a guy was complaining about all these emails that didn't seem to say anything, they were just about feeling good, and he just wanted them to spit it out. Which corresponded to firey red getting mad at green.
So with that context, do you have any that actually had an impact on you?
Most typological approaches to personality are BS. Take Meyers Briggs as an example. If you are 51% extroverted, you are an extrovert, supposedly having more in common with someone who scored 100% on that same metric than an “introvert” who scored 49% on that metric.
Ya not a fan of those ones, they need more room for public vs private introversion like I'd sooner walk on a stage naked and introduce myself than to try and mingle at a party
MBTI most definitely takes magnitude into account. It's bullshit for many other reasons, including not being reliably measurable.
Is anything in psychology reliably measurable?
Yes, very much so, many many things.
Well yes they are.
That's why I was asking if any stood out to you as helpful.
Yeah I didn’t have an answer but wanted to contribute to the conversation lol
I don't think Meyers Briggs claims that magnitude is irrelevant. Most tests I've done will tell you a score on each of the four axes.
I must be pretty solidly into my categories on MB as while I agree it is BS, it was also alarmingly accurate for me.